>>11622234298/5000
A number and an expression are not equivalent if they don't behave EXACTLY THE SAME, that's the issue.
I created this notation to demonstrate that something is not working... in the "standard" notation...
If -1 does not exactky the same to (-1) there is a problem, and it is not my notation "n, +n".
It's not the only thing that doesn't work ...
>>11622264>No, because (-1)*(-1) is (-1)^2, not -(1)^2LMAO
Why do you assume the "standard" notation is perfect?
